Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday May 02, 2008 @05:11AM
from the fighting-the-good-enough-fight dept.

The New York Times is reporting on Amazon's lawsuit contesting the recently enacted New York state law which requires online retail outlets to collect sales tax on items sold to the state's residents. Amazon disagrees that it should be required to collect such tax without a physical presence in the state. We discussed the 'Amazon Tax' last month. Quoting:
"The new law is based on a novel definition of what constitutes a presence in the state: It includes any Web site based in the state that earns a referral fee for sending customers to an online retailer. Amazon has hundreds of thousands of affiliates--from big publishers to tiny blogs--that feature links to its products. It says thousands of those have given an address in New York State, although it does not verify the addresses. The state law says that if even one of those affiliates is in New York, Amazon must collect sales tax on everything sold in the state, even if it is not sold through the affiliate."

I wonder if Amazon could just refuse to sell items to people in NY state, and additionally drop all affiliates there (or at least stop accepting new affiliates). I'm sure all those affiliates (bit and small) would make some racket to their state legislators if they were cut off.

Of course they'd never go that route, I think. It sure would be fun to watch, though.:P

I believe the easiest option for Amazon would be to simply drop all affiliates in New York. Refusing to sell to New York is financial suicide for them, but dropping all affiliates wouldn't cause too much grief from the public.

I believe the easiest option for Amazon would be to simply drop all affiliates in New York. Refusing to sell to New York is financial suicide for them, but dropping all affiliates wouldn't cause too much grief from the public.

Perhaps this is part of the motivation behind Amazon's Kindle [amazon.com] device. If you're not sending something through the mail to an address in a specific state, but instead providing an electronic file to someone without any physical merchandise involved, wouldn't that mean state tax laws

"Services" are taxable under state laws. That would include e-files served to your Ipod or PC.As a seller (on ebay and amazon), here is my argument against paying NY Sales Tax:- I am not a resident of New York.- Therefore I am not under the jurisdiction of that government (same as I am not under jurisdiction to France or Canada)- Thus I am not an NY citizen; governments can not tax non-citizens.

So I owe the New York government absolutely nothing for my ebay/amazon sales, and I'd like to see them try to cr

Services MAY be taxable under state laws, depending on the state. In VT, services are NOT taxable.A state that is taxing a sale taking place in another state seems to violate the Interstate Commerce clause, at least that's my arm chair understanding. Couldn't it be argued that the sales tax is acting as a tarrif on imports from another state? Any real lawyers have any comments about this? Anyone know enough about the founders intent? They had postal services even 200 years ago... the concept hasn't cha

...A state that is taxing a sale taking place in another state...That is not the issue. If a NY resident buys something they are subject to NY tax, no matter where they bought it or how it was shipped to them, by truck or by wire. The sale takes place wherever the buyer lives.

What NY wants to do is to force Amazon and others to be their tax collector, just as they do with stores physically in NY. The US Supreme Court has ruled that a seller has to be PHYSICALLY located in the state that wishes that seller t

>>>"The sale takes place wherever the buyer lives."Close but not wholly accurate. If I buy something in Maryland, where I live, I pay SALES tax. If I drive across the border, buy in PA or DE, and then drive back, I have to pay a USE tax. Two different taxes, depending upon if the item was purchased inside or ourside of Maryland jurisdiction.

Amazon has to charge Sales tax for sales within its own state (where it has physical presence). It does not have to charge Use tax for out-of-state sales; t

I would see the use tax as a lot more Constitutionally valid if it applied to all products used in the state. By prejudicially applying it only to imported goods, it is, in effect, nothing more than a thinly disguised way to apply sales tax on interstate commerce. While I realize a few appellate courts have upheld these blatantly unconstitutional laws, that's because of how many strict constructionalists the Republicans have packed into the courts in question. That doesn't make it remotely the right deci

....The sale occured where the merchant received payment,...Not strictly true. The sales tax is determined by residency and state law. When I, as an Oregonian, go buy something in either CA or WA, I don't have to pay their sales taxes, since we don't have sales taxes here. In WA they make it easier than CA. In WA I can just show the merchant my Oregon ID, proving I am indeed and Oregon resident. The merchant will make note of that ID and not charge the WA sales tax. It obviously make sense to do this only f

So I owe the New York government absolutely nothing for my ebay/amazon sales, and I'd like to see them try to cross the border and come get me. I don't think Pennsylvania would accept NY soldiers/officers marching across its territory in order to reach me in Maryland.

Not that this is going to happen, but they could cut some of the web traffic going to your site, and they could force their local banks not to do business with you. There is plenty they can do within their own physical borders. It's just that

...when they (or their agents)...So if someone in NY advertises something Amazon sells, they become their agent? I always was under the impression that to be someone's agent there had to be some sort of agreement that gave such an agent the right to speak for and do business for someone like Amazon.

Sales tax is always due from the buyer. All that NY is trying to do is to force Amazon to become their tax collector. NY has the perfect right to collect whatever taxes they wish from their resident's, but they

Cue in the thunderous laugh of millions of permanent residents... The only "benefit", resident non-citizens have, is the ability to avoid jury duty. Taxes are levied on all (without representation, of course — ha-ha).

I know, what you meant — you are not a permanent resident of NY either... But do choose your words more carefully.

They are not trying to tax anyone outside of NY. What they are trying to do is to force Amazon to be their tax collector for taxes that NY residents should rightfully pay. The issue is if one state can force someone in another state to obey their laws. This would have to be decided by the Federal Government.

No, no it's not. See, as a seller, you don't "owe" money to the state of New York. The people who bought something from you owe the money, and you are the intermediary that makes sure that money gets to the state of New York. Doesn't matter if you are a citizen, you aren't the one paying taxes. You sold to someone in New York who is a citizen, and therefore they owe the taxes. New York is kindly asking your help in collecting that money because the buyer is not reporting as they should according to the

I believe the easiest option for Amazon would be to simply drop all affiliates in New York. Refusing to sell to New York is financial suicide for them, but dropping all affiliates wouldn't cause too much grief from the public.

I don't know. Financial suicide? Refusing to sell to people in New York (or hell, even charging them sales tax) is a nice way to get the people of New York _really_ pissed off. In an ideal world, this would have the people of New York decide they need new lizards in office.

Now, what an ideal world has to do with where we are now, that's anybody's guess...

I believe the easiest option for Amazon would be to simply drop all affiliates in New York. Refusing to sell to New York is financial suicide for them, but dropping all affiliates wouldn't cause too much grief from the public.

Amazon could live quite well without selling to New York. As long as they have a profitable market some where, they can afford to not do business in areas that are counter productive to them. They could just as easily say that they aren't doing business in either Canada, Europe, China

ignore that law and let NY prove in federal court (if the can) that it is a valid law. What right does NY have to enforce one of their laws on someone from another state? Is this not a Federal issue, since the parties are in different states? Does NY law apply in Washington or any other state?

The New York Legislature. Which I'm sure the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually tell to "screw off" because the National Constitution (which NY signed) says only the U.S. may regulate commerce across borders. i.e. New York can't go taxing the Californian business known as amazon.

....New York can't go taxing the Californian business known as amazon...

NY is not taxing anyone other than NY residents. The issue is not taxes at all. The issue is whether NY or any other state enforce their laws outside of their own borders. The want to force Amazon to be their tax collector, even though Amazon is not located in NY.

Doesn't the antidote to this seem clearer than day on this one? All Amazon has to do is ban publishers with payment addresses in NY... those big enough to care can simply reincorperate in a more tax-friendly state, those small enough not to matter will simply just go away.

As dropping those affiliates WILL cause some financial hardship, look for any problems with the law and sue to get it put down.

If that doesn't work, then go the banning route.

If I were CEO of Amazon, I would ban affiliates because it would impact New Yorkers. If I as a resident of Indiana write to a state congressman in New York protesting this law, they won't care because I am not there. If the NY residents complain, it will carry far more impact.

FirstlyThe question is whether the vendors must collect those taxes on behalf of the state. Generally, only those companies that have a physical presence, such as an office or store, in the state of the purchase are required to collect the taxes.By have a physical presence in NY, I'm deriving benefits from the state; Amazon without a physical presence in NY receives no state benefits and should not have to work as the states agent withput consideration.SecondlyAmazon's legal obligations are dependent on the actions of a third party over which it has no contract or control. It would be like the county tax assessor telling your your property taxes will increase 25% on sunny days!ThirdlyNY is the poster child for it's mishmash of sales tax laws, my understanding is that you can be liable for state, county, and municipal sales taxes in some places of NY, the chief obstruction to a coherrent, unified national state sales tax system is NY

...ThirdlyNY is the poster child for it's mishmash of sales tax laws, my understanding is that you can be liable for state, county, and municipal sales taxes in some places of NY, the chief obstruction to a coherrent, unified national state sales tax system is NY

NC works the same way in that there is a state tax + count + city.. (atleast that is the option) 99.999999~% of citys all use the same sales tax and i have only ever seen it where the city or county would lower or not charge theirs for a short time.. (that is what the used to do in some areas for back to school time before the whole state agreed one one weekend where all school supplys are tax free)

NY just likes to abuse it.. i am sure there are others states that have the same laws on the books and can

I agree that NY is full of sh*t.... I believe that this is the same state that applied a tax law for a vehicle that consumed too much gas, the turned around and applied a tax for a vehicle that took not enough gas, and it is only a matter of time before they come up with a tax for a vehicle sitting in the driveway too long....Tax Auditor: "I see you work from home, but you own a car..."Person: "Yes...i don't have to drive to work, as I work from home."Tax Auditor: "I see, I see, well that means you are pr

FirstlyThe question is whether the vendors must collect those taxes on behalf of the state. Generally, only those companies that have a physical presence, such as an office or store, in the state of the purchase are required to collect the taxes.
By have a physical presence in NY, I'm deriving benefits from the state; Amazon without a physical presence in NY receives no state benefits and should not have to work as the states agent withput consideration.

First, I congratulate you on you being one of the few that understood that properly. Second, if you don't collect for them, they have every right to bar you from doing business in their state.

If Amazon gives in by banning NY retailers, they will lose the battle as other states pass similar provisions. They can't ban every state, and every state wants a cut of the pie.

As a New Yorker, I'm offended by what (legally) appears to be an unconstitutional money grab. The problem is that very, very few people declare excise tax, and if they do it is typically for under $100 in goods.

Amazon already sets up its distribution centers in sales tax-free zones such as having one in Nashua, NH which is a border community to MA which has a 5% tax on most things that aren't food or clothing.

I don't think New York has the authority to do this. But I sure would like to see the supreme Court act.

One problem with sales tax is the complexity of the code. What states need to do is to create an out-of-state seller tax rate, which retailers could voluntarily choose to pay (instead of trying to figure out the specific taxing locale). It might be equal to the highest taxing rate in the state, and would be paid to the state with no locale attached to the revenue sent there. Then the state would divide the revenue up amongst their localities based on some sort of formula (perhaps based on in-state sales, for example, for percentages).

Over here in Europe it's pretty common having to pay your country's VAT (plus customs fees) for imported goods. The same would work for offshore retailers sending goods to the US.

Except the US has a very different tax system to most of Europe. The closest they have is something called "Sales Tax", and that varies from state to state. (As I understand it, it's also only levied on goods sold within the state, not goods brought in from another state or, for that matter, another country).

Except the US has a very different tax system to most of Europe. The closest they have is something called "Sales Tax", and that varies from state to state. (As I understand it, it's also only levied on goods sold within the state, not goods brought in from another state or, for that matter, another country).

Very true. Other differences between sales tax and my understanding of VAT;

*It's only levied on final sale - if a middleman has a federal tax ID as a reseller, he pays no sales tax.

The state isn't taxing Amazon, though. They're requiring Amazon to collect taxes owed by Amazon's customers on behalf of the state. This is how all point-of-sale-collected sales tax works: its not owed by the retailer, but by the consumer, and collected by the retailer both as a convenience (no reporting/payment burden remains) and because consumers have proven remarkably unlikely to actually report and pay the tax themselves. If it wasn't for this, the only actual way to enforce a sales tax would be to

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Difficult to solve? How so?I've worked in a company that used to sell via the internet (and postal mail before that). It was never a big issue before the internet, but the states are imagining millions going uncollected and that gives the money-loving pols a severe case of agita. [medterms.com]

From a programming perspective, how hard is it to examine a couple of fields - country, state and zip code. All of the tax data resides in a table. The table is populated from data supplied via a subscription service - like now. Tha

> From a programming perspective, how hard is it to examine a couple of fields - country, state and zip code. All of the tax data resides in a table.

Not quite. Remember, zipcodes don't necessarily align with the boundaries of tax authorities. I live in the City of Pembroke Pines, Florida... but technically, my zipcode and official mailing address is the CIty of Hollywood, Florida. Someone going by zipcode would assume I'm within the jurisdiction of Hollywood, not Pembroke Pines.

no it's not. Step 1 - find and beat silly every person in charge of tax codes for that state. Lock them in a public stockade and sell rotten food to passers by to throw at the scumbags until they get the point.

Step 2 - While the scumbags are under arrest, elect sane and honest representatives, repeal the stupid laws and enact sane laws.

This is actually quite simple. Problem is in order to do it the tasks require getting people off their asses an

Until about a decade ago Australia was like the US, each state had a dart board to see how much sales tax was due on a purchase depending what it was that you were purchasing and random interstate companies were often dragged into court for "avoiding sales tax". This was eliminated in a deal between the states and the federal government and was replaced by an across the board 10% GST on all sales regardless of wether they are wholesale or retail.

>I don't think New York has the authority to>do this. But I sure would like to see the>supreme Court act.That seems iffy to me. Most of the goods I purchase at a store aren't from in state, but I still pay sales tax on them.

Just because Amazon's store is online, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to pay the same sales tax everyone else does.

I live in Washington state, in Seattle, the same city where Amazon is based, and I already pay state sales taxes on Amazon goods.

the issue is (as larry put it) Taxation without repersentation.i live in NC.. if i sell something to someone next to me i have to charge my states sales tax.. that tax goes to fund my local/state government and provide me services such as police/fire/school/crap roads.. but if i sell to someone from NY over the phone (while they are in NY and i am in NC) then it is an interstate traffic.

that person (from NY) is responsiable for paying his local sales tax - i am not responsiable for collecting it and then s

It would be easier just to allow the state the entity is shipping from to collect a sales tax, a closer parallel to the idea that you pay a sales tax to whatever state you (and the seller) are in when you purchase something in meatspace. Tracking sales taxes for all your buyers' states (and sometimes counties) is cumbersome, this is a far simplier option. And while it means NY doesn't get a sales tax immediately, it closes the loophole where no one pays a sales tax, a problem with all but a handful of state

Sure, Amazon has done it and in fact has done it well. But they're also a giant company with the kind of resources to do such a thing. Collecting sales tax for the buyer doesn't scale down well to smaller operations, the complexity remains but the resources to handle it doesn't. Unless the Feds want to provide a live database that companies can use to look up specific sales taxes, leaving the task in the hands of the seller is just going to make running a smaller business impractical.

They did, years ago, in the days of mail order. They decided that a seller has to have a physical presence in a given state, before that state can force them to become a tax collector for them. The Internet is nothing more than a hi-tech, more convenient mail order system.

Technically it the USE portion of the sales-use taxes that would be collected by Amazon, so here's a delema, My mother in NY loves books so I buy her one for her birthday from California and have Amazon ship it to her in NY, so who pays the use tax to NY?

You're really confused, buyers pay the tax at the time of purchase. It is tacked on to their final sum based off of either their billing or shipping address. You don't have to keep track of what you bought and claim that at the end of the year, unless you're a non-profit or buying things for business use.

You pay tax when you receive the money.You pay tax when you spend the money. - Sales taxThe business that profited off the sale pays tax on the profit.The business that employs the cashier that took your money pays payroll taxes on the wage.The cycle starts again.

I'm not sure how you can say that it's a tax on the business, and not the consumer, when there is also yet another tax for that...

Just another unconstitutional NY state grab for out-of-state businesses' $ to get more coke and "entertainment" money. Apparently prices are going up there, too. If NY "wins" anything, it will be interesting to see if AMZN shows them the doghouse.

This is simply a jurisdiction (State, County or City) trying to make tax collection easier for themselves. I don't know of any jurisdiction with a Sales Tax that doesn't already have a corresponding Use tax, which is intended to tax anything that was purchased from out of Jurisdiction. Unfortunately, collecting that Use tax is difficult with the number of possible filers and the jurisdiction's desire to verify that the filers aren't under-reporting. Generally, they have dealt with this by going after bus

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

The new law is based on a novel definition of what constitutes a presence in the state: It includes any Web site based in the state that earns a referral fee for sending customers to an online retailer.

It's not novel. In Zippo v. Zippo 952 F. Supp. 1119, the Court found Pennsylvania had jurisdiction over Zippo.com, a California-based company, over the fact it engaged in electronic commerce with 3,000 individuals and 7 ISPs located in Pennsylvania. In this case, Amazon is engaged in electronic commerce with numerous companies, via the referral fee, based out of New York--thus New York should have the same jurisdiction rights as Pennsylvania did.

Actually, that's the point. Zippo Manufacturing, the ones who make the lighters, is located in Pennsylvania. Zippo.com, a totally unrelated firm that among other things provided news feeds, is located in California. The lighter company wanted to bring the trademark case to Pennsyvania for state law trademark dilution under 54 Pa.C.S.A. 1124. Naturally, the internet company wanted that dismissed for for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue.

NY could easily pass delivery tax and make UPS and Fed-ed collect the tax for them.

However much I dislike the taxes, I hate discrimination and government loading the dice and making the playing field slanted. The brick-and-mortar companies in New York are obligated to collect sales tax for NY. That includes you corner diner and the mom-and-pop store selling used books. There was a time when compiling 50 state sales tax codes or even 25000 local county tax codes and making businesses outside complying with these code was technologically impossible. But now that excuse is not valid anymore.

If Amazon does not have to collect the tax, none of the local businesses should have to collect the tax. If the local businesses must, then Amazon must too. It is a question of Government not playing favorites and creating walled gardens. It is not really a question of whether or not the the sales tax is fair or unfair. But I am not sure most people will see the distinction.

Based upon the value of what? Are you saying Fedex or UPS should know what's in the package?

That's an easy one. Either the package clearly states the price of the package, and the tax that applies (and the sender gets in _big_ trouble if the information is incorrect), or some silly flat tax applies, eg the greater of $50/kg or $5/1000 cubic cm.

Of course having the value of the package clearly obvious on the outside makes it easier for the thieves to select the best packages to steal... oh yeah... and all th

or some silly flat tax applies, eg the greater of $50/kg or $5/1000 cubic cm.

Ha! Your non-American, tax loving, status has been exposed!

Still, $50/kg? The USPS will deliver a 2.2 pound package cross country for $8.95 ($2.81 if you use media rate) and you want to slap $50 on that? Man, the price of books definitely just grew out of reach for most people. Ditto for sending something like a hard drive out for warranty repair.

As I mentioned last time this tax came up, NY is already getting their use tax out of us via our state income taxes, so this is just another grab to tax the

Affiliates are just advertising venues who get paid on commissions. NYC is the center of magazine publishing. They're the old school version of affiliates. If everyone who advertises in a magazine creates a point of presence in NYC, oo boy, the magazines will be upset.

Amazon disagrees that it should be required to collect such tax without a physical presence in the state.

Perhaps it's time to think about a uniform VAT for online sales. That would eliminate the need for online retailers to calculate and collect a sales tax for every individual state and could be applied to overseas online sales.

Saddling an online retailer with 50 different collection accounts and a patchwork of taxable items is just wrong. Exempt food, apply a uniform VAT, form a quasi-government co

I'm not sure why this is such a big problem. Being in Canada, I'm already used to being taxed for everything I purchase online. Either it gets collected at the vendor side (especially if it's in the country), or it gets collected at customs.

I recently had a weird experience when I purchased a Verisign SSL cert. Being a US company, they did not have an option for me to pay in Canadian dollars (fine). What threw me off, and my company's Finance department, is that said US company charging me in US dollars c

It wounds like there's alot of greed flowing around here... you alls wants no taxes, and the "evil" state is going to end the party.Frankly, New York State is in the hole. Most of its industry went overseas within the last two decades (no more glass from Corning, film from Rochester, shoes from Binghamton, etc.) and at times it seems like the entire economy of the state has shifted to New York City. Much of that work (and a nice chunk of the state's revenues) comes from the financial sector. Which is now in

Just buy everything with PayPal and have it shipped to yourself as a gift from a fictitious address outside of New York. If they solve this, then any non-New York resident could tax-bomb any New York resident by gift shipping all of their stuff to their own houses using a New York address as the giver.

Wow! You're so right, and so completely ethical! How can I help but be inspired by your rectitude? Lucky for us that huge corporations don't pull that kind of shit, or we'd be losing BILLIONS of dollars, not just a million or two here and there.

If you want to talk about greed, let's talk about the state legislatures and localities that have an insatiable appetite for raising taxes. That's their solution to every fiscal shortfall. They seem to be unable to grasp the concept of "living within your means". Not satisfied with what they can extract from their own citizens, they want to force out-of-state businesses to do their dirty work for them. As far as I am concerned, they can all go to hell.

Problem is not that the Govt will tax, tax, tax and then tax some more. The problem is people want the Govt to spend, spend, spend and spend some more. Not a single person posting here about the money grubbing pols, and the greedy Govt will say one service he/she is willing to sacrifice.

The right way to control taxes is by voting for politicians who will cut services and spending. But that is hard. Every pol has a home constituency and will protect the govt spending in that sector. With no reduction in s

I'm willing to make some sacrifices. How about welfare payments without a drug test? Or major crop (e.g. rice) subsidies? Or more "agents" requiring me to take off my shoes to get on a plane?

If there was a politician that came forward with these kind of ideas, I would gladly vote for him/her. But the reality is that talking about cutting items just isn't as sexy as bringing in new projects.

The fiscal shortfall in most states is brought about because programs are set up with reoccurring costs in good years. When the economy does poorly, revenues decreases primarily because (a) house prices fall, reducing real-estate taxes (b) less people are employed, reducing income taxes (c) yes, sales tax, but it is relatively minor compared to a & b.Also, every state indexes their programs so there are automatic increases built into every agency and program.

People bitch, bitch, bitch about how shitty the economy is (even when it was good), but they don't expect a reduction in government services during the hard times?Honestly, I don't buy it. If our local governments stood up and said: "We're in a recession. Tax revenues are down. We're making cuts in non-essential, non-infrastructure services until things pick up", people would understand. Yeah, politicians don't want to be the ones to break the bad news to the public in fears that they won't get re-elected.

People that avoid paying taxes are actually stealing from everyone else in the State that now has to make up for the shortfall. Like it or not, it all comes down to one word - GREED.I'm sure we'll see hundreds of posts here on how this or that is illegal or unconstitutional, but like I said - it still all boils down to GREED - gimme, gimme, gimme - In money we trust!

Some would say that it is unconstitional and a violation of the 13th Amendment [wikipedia.org] against Slavery [wikipedia.org].

Though I grew up in the U.S., I now live in Finland, where the state actually provides services in exchange for high taxation: excellent public transportation, generous unemployment and retirement, a monthly living allowance to students, free university education, a flourishing arts scene, and so forth. Paying taxes here is actually attractive. In the U.S., where people feel increasingly out of touch with their government, suspicious of the ability of police to actually do their job, and can't count on Soci

Like it or not, it all comes down to one word - GREED. It's the only thing that's been driving the US for the last 12 years and more - And it's the reason the US has sunk to the status of a 2nd rate Nation...

Personal polemics and random capitalisation aside, my understanding of the reason for the absence of a coherent tax policy is that Clinton signed into law legislation that exempted the internet (in the days when Al Gore was busy inventing it) from the kind of mucking about that the State of New York is

Yes, I live in NC and yes, I benefit from the things that are built with state tax money. This "should" language you keep using is anathema to me, though. What should happen is that they don't take money from me except for what I elect to do. Yes, they have the authority to do it otherwise, but not robbing me for things I don't use is the should.

Greed is wanting more when you have enough; I grant that this is subjective, but "enough" is not determined by well-intentioned tax assessors. Kee

How far do you want to take this? Should I have to pay sales tax to my home state if I buy a cookie and bring it across the boarder?

The REAL problem with collecting sales tax for online sales has nothing to do with the customer paying the state. It has EVERYTHING to do with the burden on the retailer. Do you have any idea how big a mess the sales tax system in most places is?It can very from county to county and even from town to town in the county.So under your system let me show you how this would work.Any website that sells anything is going to have to register with not just EVERY STATE but every county and town. Each of them will require that you pay a fee to get your tax number... Oh joy.Then every quarter you will have to file a few THOUSAND tax reports. One per city, county, and state.Then you will have to have some way to decide which local gets the tax and what the rate is. Do you tax the shipping address or the billing address?So what your plan would do is drive every small web store right out of business.It is unconstitutional for the states to tax interstate commerce.So your little rant is just that a rant. Do we give to many tax cuts to the very rich and big companies? Yea I think so but this has NOTHING to do with that. In this case the tax break is going right to the consumer aka the little guy.Under your plan the burden would be on the small companies and the consumer.

Wow.. you sound like a such a bleeding heart liberal.. oh wait.. this is slashdot. Legally avoiding taxes is stealing.. that takes some balls of come up with. I call bullshit! It's my right to minimize taxes I pay in every legal way.
Greed (as you call it) or free market capitalism (my preferred term) is has been not only driving this country, but also most of the civilized world.
When did US, with the largest GDP in the world (right on par with the entire EU) become the 2nd rate nation?
It's not about gimm

Apparently the state wants to sue Amazon. NY is arguing that having affiliates (in links) that live in NY constitutes a physical precense in the state. Amazon counters that it's overly broad, unconstitutional, and hard to enforce reliably.

So enlighten us, about what specific service that should be cut. It is easy to say, "I don't want to pay tax". It is far harder to identify the government spending that should be cut. If you don't get the spending down, refusing to pay taxes will just mean you will pay in other ways. Like inflation, unmaintained roads, slower snow clearance, longer waits through the security lines,
worse schools.

Get down to brass tacks and mention one service that you get from the state that you are willing to sacrifice t

Bullshit, have you ever lived in NYS? The current climate of screwing the populace for the benefit of the pols started under Rockefellar in the '60's and has continued ever since. The result is NYS losing businesses and population. The pols response is to increase taxes because they've decimated the tax base. The pols build in interlocking services and entitlements so when expenses outstrip revenue, they claim nothing can be cut using the same fucking argument you just gave. To cut any one service is going